Iraq: Reality Call

[Annie]

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/28708.htm

September 17, 2004 -- FIGHTING terror is like fighting a fire. It's easiest in the early stages, before the flames spread. But if you sit idly by, hoping that the fire will burn itself out, you're likely to find yourself up against an inferno.

Confronted by global terror, the Clinton administration hoped the problem would go away by magic. Faced with incipient terror in Iraq last year, the Bush administration insisted that the magic of freedom would make it disappear.

But policies that rely on magic of any kind beg for disaster.

We don't yet face a disaster in Iraq — thanks to the quality and commitment of our troops. And the Bush administration, despite its errors, has had a great stroke of luck in Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who has shown not only a solid grasp of the problems Iraq faces, but the will to solve them no matter what it takes.

At the moment, it's almost impossible to find a balanced view of Iraq in America. The partisans of both political parties are out in force, insisting either that Iraq's a magnificent place with a minor litter problem, or that it's an inferno where countless legions of terror are being forged.

The reality's in the middle, but still more hopeful than not. Despite the lurid media reports, more good things than bad are happening in Iraq. Progress is slow and painful. But it's still progress.

The media report an increase in violence, occasionally noting that the terrorists hope to influence the U.S. election. But there's much more to the carnage than Bush vs. Kerry.

Despite the impression created by intermittent attacks, the terrorists have shifted their priority away from attacking our troops. Every time they go after our soldiers or Marines, our enemies suffer disproportionate casualties. So they're concentrating on killing Iraqis — government officials, the police, educators, doctors and businessmen.

This gains them short-term headlines and creates local chaos, but it's alienating the population. Bombing crowds of young men applying for jobs is not an effective way to win hearts and minds. The Iraqis may not want us to stay forever, but they do not want the terrorists in power.

And there's another, more significant reason why the violence has increased: Our troops are on the offensive again, reclaiming towns and cities where terrorists grabbed power after the Bush administration faltered in Fallujah this past spring.

Despite the frantic efforts of the Arab media to stop our destruction of the terrorists and insurgents, Prime Minister Allawi and the key members of his government are hanging tough. They know that Iraq doesn't have a chance unless terror is uprooted. They support our troops. In response, the Bush administration has been willing to apply military power again, as long as it doesn't create embarrassing headlines before November.

We're retaking one city after another. But the core problem remains Fallujah, where the administration's surrender — despite the tactical success of our Marines — allowed our enemies to create a terrorist city-state. The violence that seeped across central Iraq over the summer came from terror's safe haven in Fallujah.

Allawi wants Fallujah brought into line. Our military has the muscle. Operations will be harder now than they would have been four months ago, since our enemies have had time to prepare for a siege. But we can do it.

The delay is because the Bush administration wants to avoid serious combat until after our elections. The Bushies are using airstrikes against terrorist safe houses, but that won't retake the city.

The truth is that the terrorists are the lesser problem. The greater impediment to progress has been our presidential elections and the policy distortions they create.

The polarization, dishonesty and manipulation on both sides aids the terrorists. When John Kerry states categorically that he'll bring our troops home within four years, it promises the terrorists that they only have to hang on. When he declares our efforts a disaster, he encourages our enemies to believe they're winning. And when he promises a "more sensitive" war on terror, it's read as a pending declaration of surrender.

Kerry blathers. Bush delays. Iraq burns.

Meanwhile, our intelligence community has once again shown its weakness by covering its backside, instead of finding terrorists. A National Intelligence Council report revealed this week paints a bleak picture of the future of Iraq. Why? Because the intel bureaucrats don't want to be blamed if things go wrong. There's nothing safer than assuming failure.

I dealt with the NIC during my days as an intelligence officer. I always found it more interested in playing it safe than in serving our country. Clearly, nothing has changed.

October is going to be a bloody month — it may appear to prove the pessimists right. But Iraq's future isn't tied to a 24/7 news cycle. The key event is going to be the election. Not our election, but the Iraqi vote scheduled for January.

Nobody else in the Middle East wants that election to take place. The U.N. is warning that security conditions may prevent voting — giving the terrorists hope. But the Iraqi interim government is staying the course.

Fallujah is the military test of our resolve to secure the future of Iraq. But the January election is the strategic test. We must not let ourselves become discouraged. Those ballots are worth fighting for. No matter how bloody and flawed, an Iraqi vote held on schedule would be a tremendous victory for freedom.

Our enemies and fair-weather friends alike will try to disrupt the voting. Our response may decide the future of the entire Middle East.

Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."

 

[nakedemperor]

"Our enemies and fair-weather friends alike will try to disrupt the voting. Our response may decide the future of the entire Middle East."

Amen to that, sister.

Anyone ever seen the HBO documentary Death in Gaza? Its pretty frightening-- it shows the martyr culture of Palestine and how quickly hatred and willingness to devote oneself to Jihad. As soon as one martyr is killed, his 15 cousins seem to join the cause and pick up the banner. I seriously hope this isn't the case in Iraq, or else we're in for a major mess.

Is anyone aware of the similarities/differences between Palestinian hatred of Israel and the Iraqi militants' hatred of the U.S. and its 'puppet government'? On the news recently I heard that Iraqi civilians blame U.S. troops who respond to a suicide bombing or mortar attack, etc, rather than the actual perpetrators. This seems more or less akin to the general stance in Palestine. I really really hope levelheadedness prevails and the general population doesn't sink into this perception of their liberators, but I really have no sense of how its playing out-- anyone know if Ms. Ammanpour (sp?) has done any human life stories in Baghdad recently? =P

P.S. this is genuine curiosity, not feigned pessimism. See the avatar